Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #372
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, April 11 2001          Volume 01 : Number 372

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:15:01 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 12:23:41AM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello Kent,
> 
> Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 10:57:48 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > Right.  But .com is popular, and sld registries are not.  Moreover,
> > other TLDs are not popular -- people constantly forget that there are
> > 240 odd other TLDs out there.
> 
> > That is, the popularity of .com is a sociological phenomenon.
> 
> This argument doesn't stand.  There has been a stigma against those

"stigma" isa "sociological phenomenon".

Thanks for agreeing with me.

> 240 odd other TLDs, in that they are considered "localized" domains,
> and when people think of the internet, they don't think of "localized"
> things, they think of the international scope.  Sure, you and I know
> it's purely semantics, but that's the fact (speaking from real life
> experience here Kent).
> 
> Whereas new TLDs that are NOT tied to what is considered a localized
> naming scheme are not going to suffer from that stigma.
> 
> Using popularity of ccTLDs as a baseline for the popularity of new
> international open gTLDs is about as fallacious as you can get.
> 
> But then you already knew that.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:[email-masked]
> 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:26:56 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Critics say stick to the topic

Gee, Robin, I can't afford a DVD recorder, which would enable me to distribute my movies widely and with high quality.  I guess I'll steal one.

If I can't steal one, I'll fume and moan about Pioneer's pricing.

Whenever someone with pioneer.com in his E-mail address posts something, I'll attack him for things he has nothing to do with, and then launch into a diatribe about Pioneer's corporate practices and how they bullied this or that hapless cowboy.

When Autodesk or Proctor & Gamble speak up in this forum, then you can respond to them.  Until then, LEAVE ME AND THE REST OF US OUT OF IT.

Gavin (not pronounced "autodesk")

- -----Original Message-----
From: Robin Miller [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 12:00 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

One word - Proctor and Gamble.

One of the biggest speculators there is. Want to take them on? 

And yes, I remember what happened to that guy, being bullied by your employer.
Until your employer got bullied back and backed down. I have been bullied by
large corps too, over a name we had every right to have, that were every bit
relevant to our business and to the birthname of my fiance. It did not help us
in the slightest.

Sorry, but you wont gain much sympathy on my ear for Autodesk bullying that
artist with The3dStudio.com domain name. Its the same kind of bully behaviour
that so many fan sites have to endure. The letter they sent that guy was simply
atrocious, and I know how those letters are. I happen to know two artists well
that both use 3d Studio Max, neither one can afford the software. But both use
legal copies. At work, copies licensed by their employers. But, I refuse to
ever use it. Its too expensive for an independent artist. I have found other
less expensive software that fits my needs perfectly. But your company thought
it ok to deride that artist for using the software and not being registered,
using that as a basis to steal his domain name. It would surely help with more
registrations if they made the software affordable.

I've gotten these sorry cease and desist letters too, on a domain name that was
simply based on my fiances name, with a viable website concerning his personal
self and business using that name for the last 20 years. 20 years not a
problem... but unfortunately, a large unrelated corporation had green eyes for
the domain, and stopped short of nothing to steal it from us. By both legal and
illegal means. Yes they had a trademark on the initials of his birth name. Yes,
they were able to prevent him from using his birthname in many areas of
business - because he couldnt afford to fight a long expensive legal battle to
keep all the rights to his birthname. Yes, its downright sick. Yes, its the
trend nowadays. We are the nameless masses that you must protect the public
from. Just someone forgot to tell you, we are the public. :)

Robin
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:25:51 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...a scalper's license

> You know, ticket scalping is illegal.  Why's that?  
> Someone made a strong enough argument to get that law passed 
> in many municipalities, and you can make a similar one here.

Bad analogy. Ticket scalping tends to be illegal in those zones
closest to the stadiums themselves. Here in Seattle, it's illegal
in the city itself (where the stadia are), but not anywhere else.
You ask why, so I'll presume you don't know. The main
reason is consumer protection. Scalpers at the venue tend,
on the whole, to account for the vast majority of counterfeit
and stolen tickets. Making scalping illegal near the venues
cuts down on this problem. I can't see how this equates to
domain names.

If you want legal scalped tickets in the Seattle area, you call
Pacific Northwest Ticket Agency on Mercer Island (as close
as you get to Seattle and not be in Seattle). They're glad to
charge you many times the face value of the ticket for a
guaranteed genuine ticket.

I regularly sell my Sonics and Mariners season tickets through
them when I can't attend a game, and often use them to purchase
tickets to events that I want to attend at the last minute. I'd
never buy from a scalper on the street.

Offtopic, but glad I could clarify this :-)

Christopher

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:26:57 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...a scalper's license

> It's only illegal on the day of the event outside the event in those
> cities or states.

Many areas (like Seattle) extend it to the city limits, and at all
times. But you're essentially correct.

Christopher

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:46:07 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...a scalper's license

Christopher,

You seem to be limiting "consumer protection" to the reduction of counterfeiting risk or ticket-theft risk.  While these are good points, the protection of price is also often viewed as consumer protection.  Take antitrust laws, for example.  I think there are laws against loaning money with excessive interest demands as well.  Last year, record companies were found to have harmed the consumer through collusion and price-fixing (and yet weren't punished).  It seems that these consumer-protection laws are based substantially on economic protection.

That was the analogy here.  I assume fake domain names aren't too common (although I know there's been a lot of hoopla over shady firms charging for .biz or other TLDs already).

Your points about the scalping laws were indeed informative.  I'm not sure about Chicago laws, but I've heard (and joined) a lot of people wondering out loud how these "legal" scalping services get away with it.  This usually comes up in the ticket line, when you see street people being hired by scalpers to stand in line for them.

Regards,
Gavin

- -----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ambler [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 12:26 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...a scalper's license

> You know, ticket scalping is illegal.  Why's that?  
> Someone made a strong enough argument to get that law passed 
> in many municipalities, and you can make a similar one here.

Bad analogy. Ticket scalping tends to be illegal in those zones
closest to the stadiums themselves. Here in Seattle, it's illegal
in the city itself (where the stadia are), but not anywhere else.
You ask why, so I'll presume you don't know. The main
reason is consumer protection. Scalpers at the venue tend,
on the whole, to account for the vast majority of counterfeit
and stolen tickets. Making scalping illegal near the venues
cuts down on this problem. I can't see how this equates to
domain names.

If you want legal scalped tickets in the Seattle area, you call
Pacific Northwest Ticket Agency on Mercer Island (as close
as you get to Seattle and not be in Seattle). They're glad to
charge you many times the face value of the ticket for a
guaranteed genuine ticket.

I regularly sell my Sonics and Mariners season tickets through
them when I can't attend a game, and often use them to purchase
tickets to events that I want to attend at the last minute. I'd
never buy from a scalper on the street.

Offtopic, but glad I could clarify this :-)

Christopher
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:11:05 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

On Wednesday, April 11, 2001 11:34 AM (AEST)
Gavin Stokes <[email-masked]> wrote:

> How about shortage?  How about inflation?

Shortage?    There is no shortage of dotcoms.
Inflation?      Irrelevant.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:22:01 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Critics say "there's no shortage of dotcoms"

Patrick, when you say:

"Shortage?    There is no shortage of dotcoms.
Inflation?      Irrelevant."

What do you mean by "dotcoms"?  If you mean domain names (and that's the topic here), it appears that a lot of people disagree with you.  After all, aren't we talking about adding TLDs (in part) to alleviate this perceived shortage?  And here's a clip from an article on CNet:

"Capitalizing on the shortage of domain names, the Kingdom of Tonga--the only inhabited South Pacific island never to be colonized--has begun hawking the ".to" designation to Netizens."

And if artificial scarcity and inflation are irrelevant, I guess we can clear the books of all those wordy antitrust laws.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:33:57 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Do we need TLDs at all?

The question about name servers was merely technical.  I was wondering if the still-enforced domains mil, gov, and edu are handled by separate master name servers, and whether this kind of separation might provide a roadblock to totally free-form domain names.  I guess not, as long as those domains were still restricted.

Gavin

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 12:18 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Do we need TLDs at all?

Hello gavin,

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 11:10:36 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Maybe this is a technical question, but the collision discussion prompted it:

> Is there a reason that we can't have any old string as the last component of a domain name?  Does the administration of various name servers require a finite collection of TLDs?

> If the intended meaning of many TLDs is not being enforced (or isn't enforceable), why have a limited set of them?

I couldn't agree more.  ICANN's approach to namespace expansion is
much too slow for my tastes, as is its focus on building a restricted
TLD structure.

The DNS is not a directory service.  It was never intended to be.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:09:05 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes 

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, 10 April 2001 12:59 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
|>
|>
|> At 02:21 AM 4/9/2001, Dassa wrote:
|> >This is one area that the UDRP really disappoints me.  It should be a
mechanism
|> >to a handle ALL domain disputes and not just trademark issues.
|>
|> It is important to crawl before walking.  The UDRP is rather experimental,
|> given its global implication.  Hence it is important to start with the
|> narrowest mechanism possible, to limit the damage if there are serious
|> problems.  (Please see your previous postings for examples of such concerns.)
|>
|> There were attempts to expand the scope of the UDRP but they were -- very
|> wisely -- resisted.

It would seem to me that there exists a serious flaw in the thinking behind the
UDRP and what led up to it.  Any initial resolution policy should have been
implemented to deal with internal matters.  By that, I mean domain name disputes
between existing holders.  At the present time with the UDRP, we have a
concentration allowing resolution on external issues.  Any experimental process
should have been initiated on very specific internal issues.  This
"experimental" UDRP was also initiated against one of the larger and more
problematic issues.  Not a sound procedure.

It is also a process that is being continously expanded without improvements
being implemented against the known flaws.  Again not a sound procedure.

I would say the UDRP has attempted to start off running and is picking up speed
without going through any of the normal auditing and review processes.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:28:02 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Do we need TLDs at all?

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 1:34 AM
> 
> The question about name servers was merely technical.  I was 
> wondering if the still-enforced domains mil, gov, and edu are 
> handled by separate master name servers, and whether this 
> kind of separation might provide a roadblock to totally 
> free-form domain names.  I guess not, as long as those 
> domains were still restricted.

Of course they have their own registry. Each zone-file has to have one. The
only issue is whether it's a manual registry or an automated one.
Regardless, it's still a registy.

Yes, those domains are restricted. In fact, they still hold to their
original charters. Fine examples of properly defined charters and
enforcement.

IMHO, ALL zones are chartered. It only remains to detrmine what those
charters are.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:49:28 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say "there's no shortage of dotcoms"

On Wednesday, April 11, 2001 6:22 PM (AEST)
Gavin Stokes <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: [ga] Critics say "there's no shortage of dotcoms"

> Patrick, when you say:
>
> > Shortage?    There is no shortage of dotcoms.
> > Inflation?      Irrelevant.
>
> What do you mean by "dotcoms"?  If you mean domain names (and that's the topic
> here), it appears that a lot of people disagree with you.  After all, aren't
> we talking about adding TLDs (in part) to alleviate this perceived shortage?
> And here's a clip from an article on CNet:
>
> "Capitalizing on the shortage of domain names, the Kingdom of Tonga--the only
> inhabited South Pacific island never to be colonized--has begun hawking the
> ".to" designation to Netizens."
>
> And if artificial scarcity and inflation are irrelevant, I guess we can clear
> the books of all those wordy antitrust laws.

Hi Gavin

You have said a number of things which indicate that you are not well informed
on the subjects you have been discussing.  This is not meant as a criticism,
just a statement of fact.

And I do not really wish to enter in overlong debates on issues that have been
discussed at length on this and other lists.  Just one or two points are worth
clarifying.

(1)    I said "dotcoms" because the general thrust of some people's argument is
that there is a shortage in that gTLD.  Certainly there is no shortage of domain
names at the second level.  Of course a number of these are "taken" already.

(2)    You say that "people disagree with me".  People who understand the
subject don't.  From memory 67 characters are allowed including the .com which
is four characters.  That means you can have 63 alphanumerics before the dot.

Since there are 26 alphabetics, ten numerics and a hyphen, that's a BIG number.

On this issue I'd refer you to the thread "Calculation of Domain Name Bounds" on
Verisign's Domain-Policy mailing list last year.  See the Michael Krieger and
Russ Smith postings below (with my initiating email) as typical examples.

The URL for the archives is http://lists.netsol.com/archives/domain-policy.html

(3)    Giving people "more choice" does not mean there is "a shortage".

(4)    You didn't explain why you think "inflation" is relevant to the perceived
shortage of domain names.  The "antitrust laws", whilst interesting, are not
relevant to "inflation" either.  Please don't try to confuse the issue.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Michael M. Krieger <MKRIEGER/[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: Calculation of Domain Name Bounds

   The "exact" number of possiblities really doesn't need calculation
as it's more than enough not only to give each electron in the universe
(which I vaguely recall as something like 10**40) it's own IP address,
but even a private channel from each electron to every other one.

   E.g., using Bill's 255 limit, and assuming the maxiumum number of
"."s (which maximally constrains the choices), we can count the number
of addresses of alternating dots and single letter subdomains.  This
is 26**127, i.e., 26 to the 127th power.  Here we've only counted
names of the form  .x.y. ...  .z.   (127 single letter subdomains between
128 "."s.

   Already an out of the universe number, as is the number of "labels"
that can be done just at the 2nd level in, say, 60 characters, namely
something between 26**60 and 27**60  (fuzzed by the slight limitations
of using "-"s).

  Of course most of these are unmemorizable nonsense strings.  But
even if one were to limit oneself to say, the 100,000 words in the OED
of 10 letters or less (I'm guessing here about the '100,000' just to be
able to give an approximate example) - and only use 2nd level domains,
that would be 6 "blocks" with 100K possiblities in each, i.e.,
(10**5)**6 = 10**30, which ain't a shabby number either.  And these DN's
would be much more mnemonic.  Take a look at the passwords on the free
AOL disks to see the rich turf of pronounceable strings of just
10 or so letters).

  All of which long ago led me to suspect that there are enough domina
names in .com to go around if we relax a bit about wanting the "perfect"
one.

   Michael

   Michael M. Krieger
   Krieger & Nunziato llp
   UCLA Computer Science
   Editor, "New Matter" -
      Intellectual Property Journal of the State Bar of California

   [email-masked]

- ----------
Date:     Tue Nov 28, 2000 10:11 am  PST
From:     Patrick Corliss   MBX: [email-masked]

TO:       DOMAIN-POLICY     MBX: [email-masked]
BCC:    * MICHAEL M KRIEGER / MCI ID: 597-5596
Subject:  Calculation of Domain Name Bounds

William X. Walsh wrote:

>  The fact is that those of us telling you this are trying
>  to do you a favor.

Hi William

Can you do me a favour, please?  I'd like to ask you a couple of technical
questions.  Maybe others can help?  It's a bit of theory.

(1)    If a TLD can have a 2LD etc, how many levels can you go to?  Is the
limit physical or logical?  In other words, counting "DOT" how many dots are
allowed in a multipart domain name.

(2)    If the 2LD can go to 63 or 67 characters, does this restriction apply
to 3LDs etc?  If every level can have 63 characters, then what's the maximum
string length counting "DOT" and including all of the other dots.

(3)    Given the physical limit set out about, do any of the files have a
physical limit.  I remember using TPF in Qantas where block size was 1 or 2 K.

(4)    Using the number, hyphen, characterproblem, what is the maximum number
of domain names that could possibly exist?

Thanks William & Others

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: domainiac <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: Calculation of Domain Name Bounds

>36 + 36*36 + 36*38*36 + 36*38*38*36 + 36*(38^3)*36 + ... +
>36*(38^249)*36 - [all combinations that have two dots in a row
>which I would have to dig out a combinitorics book to calculate]

On second thought the second part is not that difficult.  You have 249
characters but the first and last cannot be "."-" so you are left with 247
"interior" characters.  Now think of two dots in a row as one fixed item.
You now have this fixed item plus 245 variable characters (and a variable
length of the string)

1*(38^245) + 38*1*(38^244) + (38^2)*1*(38^242)+ ... (38^245)*1 +
1*(38^244) + 38*1*(38^243) + ... (38^244)*1 +
1*(38^243) + 38*1*(38^242) + ... (38^243)*1 +
...
1*(38^2) + 38*1*38 + (38^2)*1
+ 2(38)
+1

= 246(38^245) + 245(38^244) + ... 3(38^2) +2 (38) + 1

- -----

number of .com host names (I think) = [36 + 36*36 + 36*38*36 + 36*38*38*36 +
36*(38^3)*36 + ... +
36*(38^249)*36] - [246(38^245) + 245(38^244) + ... 3(38^2) +2 (38) + 1]

Russ Smith

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:48:11 +0200
From: Robin Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say stick to the topic

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Gee, Robin, I can't afford a DVD recorder, which would enable me to distribute my movies widely and with high quality.  I guess I'll steal one.
> 
> If I can't steal one, I'll fume and moan about Pioneer's pricing.
> 
> Whenever someone with pioneer.com in his E-mail address posts something, I'll attack him for things he has nothing to do with, and then launch into a diatribe about Pioneer's corporate practices and how they bullied this or that hapless cowboy.
> 
> When Autodesk or Proctor & Gamble speak up in this forum, then you can respond to them.  Until then, LEAVE ME AND THE REST OF US OUT OF IT.

Since you chose to use your biz addy to write here, you have to reap the
consequences for that decision.

To me, it seems more like you don't know what you're talking about. You
complain about cybersquatting and there are no rules in ICANN to address it.
There are rules. Its called the UDRP. 

You complain about sunrise being for cybersquatters, when its really set up for
corporations with lots of famous TMs - like the one you work for.

BTW - I dont have a DVD recorder either. But I can record video disk. :-) and
~I~ can at least get a test version of a dvd recorder for a test drive if I
really wanted it. Bet you can't. :)

But still - I see no reason to use software that costs more than my computer
does. Its against my philosophy on buying software. I know how development
costs are. I have enough programmer friends, most with their own businesses.
Who are you calling thief? Its not me. I ~paid~ for my software that I use.

And what you forget is - I'm not complaining. I said I use other, less
expensive alternatives. Its not like Max is the only 3d software on the market
- - its not like DVD recorders. And guess what. I have bought software here that
can read and write 3ds format. :)

And who is changing the subject? You are. I said. Again. Rinse. I shall repeat.
This is what I am REALLY complaining about:

Autodesk used not having a registration for Max as AN EXCUSE to THREATEN an
artist out of his legally-held in-good-faith registered paid-for domain name
that was being used for a legitimate website. What I did before, was show you
how you may not be registered and yet be using the software legally... as I
said before, the artists I know that use it, use it at work and are not
licensed themselves. Their employers bought the license.

Autodesk was doing the reverse-domain hijacking here in this case. I - having
been on the receiving end of reverse-domain hijacking - understand this problem
all too well. This kind of thing happens WAY TOO OFTEN to average Joes and
Janes, and that is what I am complaining about. This is a 'real' threat to the
public, they are losing their right to possess domain names and set up
in-good-faith websites, losing their sites quietly to threats of long drawn-out
lawsuits. Like what nearly happened in this example I just cited. This is what
happened to us, and I got the 30K+ bill to prove it.

If the UDRP is interpreted 'strictly' by arbitrators, it 'should' protect the
average public too, and not just protect the TM holders. Unfortunately this
does not happen all the time - it is better than what we had before, however.

Robin
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:58:02 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN benefits

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:56 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN benefits
|>
|>
|> 1. You <<snipp>>ed my statement acknowledging that the
|> UDRP needs improvement.

I snipped all the material except the section I was commenting on.
Standard practice and was not intended to demote your statement.

|> 2.  You are ignoring that the UDRP is a vast improvement
|> over the NSI policies.

Matter of opinion.  I have not made my mind up about this.  I do not
like accepting something "just" because it is a slight improvement.

|> 3.  You assertion that the UDRP gives trademark holders "much" more
power
|> can be debated.  In any event, see #1, above.

Keep in mind I was commenting on the statement I quoted and that I was
not commenting on your personal opinion or statements as such but the
content.  Which makes #1 irrelevent.

|> 4.  You ignore that the UDRP makes the process vastly cheaper for
the
|> domain holder, as well as the trademark claimant.

No, I do not see this as being a fact.  It is very clear that it is
substantially cheaper for claimants but I would not accept it is
cheaper for the defendant.  Without the UDRP, a lot of these claims
would never be made as they have no basis under the law in a lot of
areas.

|> 5.  You have no statistics to support your claims of unfairness as
a
|> substantial pattern.

I can claim you have no more relevent statistics to support your
claims of fairness.  However, if we look at some of the figures
provided at http://dcc.syr.edu/roughjustice.htm
We see the following:
Complaint Dismissed               191  19.6%
Name Cancelled                     16  01.6%
Name Transfer                     764  78.4%
Split                               4   0.4%
Terminated / Withdrawn / Settled  195  16.7%*

I would call nearly 20% of cases being dismissed a matter of serious
concern.  It shows the process is placing an unfair burden on
defendants.  Especially if the high number of defaulted claims are
taken into consideration.  Personally I don't take too much notice of
statistics, they can always be made to favour one or another stance.
Reading through the above site does provide some food for thought.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:35:16 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Critics say stick to the topic

Again, Robin, read.

The UDRP is only for TRADEMARK disputes, which are not a part of this debate.  And the "sunrise" allowance is again, only for TRADEMARK holders, as another list member pointed out a long time ago.

None of this has been about trademarks.  Now, YOU repeat: "None of this is about trademarks, and thus is not about the UDRP or 'sunrise' any longer."

Here in your words is the proof of your own personal confusion (perhaps "delusion" would be better):

>>You complain about cybersquatting and there are no rules in ICANN to address it.
There are rules. Its called the UDRP. 

>>You complain about sunrise being for cybersquatters, when its really set up for
corporations with lots of famous TMs...

Your first statement here associates "cybersquatting" with trademarks.  We know this, because the UDRP only addresses trademarks, and you assert that it addresses "cybersquatting".  So you are saying that the cybersquatting issue is one of trademarks.  This is indeed how I've seen it used.

But your second statement says that "sunrise" isn't for cybersquatters; it really deals with trademarks.  Hm.  Compare that to the implications of your first statement, and you see that it's directly opposed.

It looks like you're the one who literally doesn't know what you're talking about, from one sentence to the next.  And you won't have much luck defending software piracy.  I'm no crusader against it, but I certainly wouldn't be foolish enough to attempt to defend it, as you have.  Why don't you get on some other board and defend Napster?  Equally untenable, but at least more popular.

Don't pretend you missed the point about attacking people because of their E-mail address.  I guess I can attack you because a kid named John Miller once threw a chair at my elementary school and hit a girl who had a broken arm.  And hey, did you know that Miller Brewing hassled a soda-shop owner named Hal Miller in Peotone, Illinois, who tried to use his name...(insert sob story here)

Down with all Millers, servants of evil!
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:00:15 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Comments below...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Dave
> Crocker
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 11:52 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)
>
>
> >At 09:15 PM 4/10/2001, Jeff Field wrote:
> >If half want to point to ICANN's
> >root and the other half want to point to an alternative root,
> >fine again.  I
> >see this as a marketing problem for the alternative roots, not a
> >technical
> >one for the entire Internet.
>
> Deciding whether to drive on the right or left side of the road is,
> therefore, merely a marketing matter, with no technical concerns.
>
> If half the people want to drive on the left and half want to
> drive on the
> right, that's just fine.
>
> Having cars crashing into each other, or having users unable to
> connect to
> the systems they seek are of no real concern...
>
> d/
>
> ----------
> Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

I live in the US; I drive on the right.  If I want to drive on the left,
I'll move to England or Australia.  And presumably, as long as no one is
drinking and everyone is driving carefully, there would be no collisions.
The conclusion therefore is yes, I can decide for myself whether I want to
drive on the right or the left, and do it safely; it just means my choice
may have me moving to another country.

Hmmmmm...ICANN root country or one of the alternative root countries?
Perhaps a little marketing push might help me decide?  Till then, I think
I'll just stay where I am.  ;-)

Regards,

Jeff
- --
jeff field
925-283-4083
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:35:32 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

The popularity of Manhattan real estate is high.  This does not mean that anyone in
Manhattan should give away their property at cost, simply because some yokel from
God-knows-where says its not fair that someone in Manhattan should be enjoying the
benefits of their wise investment.

This is not a baseball game.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual

P.S.  Now will someone bring this List to order?

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:38:26 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say "there's no shortage of dotcoms"

On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, at 01:22 [=GMT-0700], [email-masked] wrote:

> Patrick, when you say:
> 
> "Shortage?    There is no shortage of dotcoms.
> Inflation?      Irrelevant."

[...]

> And if artificial scarcity and inflation are irrelevant, I guess
> we can clear the books of all those wordy antitrust laws.

If all the domains were owned by just one or a few companies,
anti-trust might be a relevant word. This is not at all the case,
however.

With domains it is just as with land: there is enough of it, it can be
had very cheap even, but not where you would like to have it. So make
a choice: pay $1,000.00 for a memorable dot com, or go for something
cheaper (and spend way more on marketing).

This is the free market. This is how it works with everything, not
just domains. Why should domains be treated differently?

Marc Schneiders

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:40:10 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Critics say reading is good

[email-masked] wrote:

> As far as UDRP is concerned, I NEVER mentioned that.  I know perfectly well what it's for.  If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't even have participated in this debate, since there'd already be an apparent solution.  Duh.

Oh, good one!  and the definition for "duh" is?

> Anyone with enough intelligence to participate here should have noticed that I'm arguing AGAINST the practices that you're alleging of Autodesk.  I WANT to make domains available to "us slobs".

Still sounds like whining and snivelling to me!  So you want a domain?  Go to www.afternic.com or www.greatdomains.com , that's if you don't find what you want at any one of hundreds of registrars who appear to be in business.

Thanks.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 05:19:12 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Comments below...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of JandL
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:49 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)
>
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: JandL [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 6:53 PM
> > > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > > Cc: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency
> > >
> > >
> > > There is a technical collision in the name space.
> >
> > I respectfully disagree.  I can only conclude from your comments
> > below that it is a marketing collision (or problem), if anything.
> > Here's why I believe this to be so:
> >
> > Anyone that has registered a .biz domain name has been forewarned
> > that "the new top-level domains require that either you or your ISP
> > have UPGRADED from the functionally obsolete ICANN Legacy Namespace
> > to the ORSC INCLUSIVE NAMESPACE in order for you and your visitors
> > to see the domains you are about to register!".
> > (http://www.pacificroot.com/register.shtml)
> >
> > Of course, I would suggest that the use of the term "UPGRADED" in
> > the quote above is rather misleading to the consumer (FTC anyone?),
>
> It is an upgrade.  The legacy root is old and lacking.  Too access all
> the TLDs you do have to upgrade one way or another.

I disagree with your calling this an upgrade.  Here's why:

If you have five alternative roots, each containing all the ICANN TLDs, but
each containing a different set of additional TLDs, which alternative root
is the upgrade?  Seems to me it's more akin to the many different "flavors"
of UNIX in the marketplace, Solaris, Linux, BSDI, etc.  You really can't
call each of these flavors an upgrade to the original version of UNIX.  To
call the "ORSC INCLUSIVE NAMESPACE" an "upgrade" to the "ICANN Legacy
Namespace" is simply misleading.  And, frankly, it is just this sort of
misleading marketing that would keep me away from having anything to do with
a company that promotes their service this way.

> but
> > putting that aside for the moment, it seems to me that all the
> > alternative roots have to do is merely convince all the ISPs, etc.
> > to point to their root.  And, if all the ISPs, etc. want to do that,
> > fine.  If half want to point to ICANN's root and the other half want
> > to point to an alternative root, fine again.
>
> That's fine, as long as making that choice doesn't cause a problem.
> With a collider, it will.

What exactly is a collider and what is the problem that will be created?

>Marketing the root in this context is not
> the issue at all.  If it were the choice it is today, the marketing is
> simply to add to what you get from the ICANN root.  Nothing wrong
> there.
>
> I see this as a
> > marketing problem for the alternative roots, not a technical one for
> > the entire Internet.  And, unless someone can convince me that there
> > is indeed a technical problem here, I believe the term "collision"
> > is inappropriate in this context.  It conjures up images of failed
> > transmissions, data packets colliding, etc., none of which seem to
> > be at stake here.
>
> What you have is a fractured internet where that choice must be
> made.  As I said, up to now, carrying the DoC root intact has been
> standard.  With a duplicate TLD, it will now have to be a choice
> between versions of the TLD and duplicate domain names throughout the
> entire tree.  (however, if an ISP wanted to carry the PacificRoot and
> still carry the ICANN duplicate of .BIZ, it is easy to do so.  They
> just could not carry both).  The choice should not have to be made,
> however, and that is the problem.

I like choice.  For now I point my DNS to the ICANN root.  But I could still
be swayed to make another choice at some point in the future if there's a
compelling reason to do so.

> Consider a half dozen .coms throughout the world.  Shoot, why not a
> dozen?  He with the bucks for marketing causes the most confusion.
> Heck, why not?  ICANN is responsible for only the one root, right?
> And DoC has authority for only its versions of .com/net/org.  If they
> can duplicate .BIZ, I guess anyone can duplicate .com - multiple
> times.  Sheesh.

Yes, there is nothing to prevent someone from setting up a different root
with a different version of .com.  And, on the surface, that might sound
like a good idea.  I mean, heck, the ICANN .com has more than 20 million
registered names...if someone could get even 10% the size, that's still a
lot of registrations and still a lot of money.  I believe there is only one
thing preventing attempts at such a business model.  There's no VC money
around to fund it.  Why?  Ever hear of a snowball's chance in hell?

> I agree, though, that there is every chance that DoC will defy
> stability, Congress and everyone else and duplicate the TLD.  When
> things start getting messy and there is a lot of screaming, it will be
> too late.
>
> >
> > As for creating problems for the ISP and keeping track of two
> > different .biz names they might be hosting, well, tough...the ISPs
> > are just going to have to pick a horse to ride.
>
> If it were quite that simple, fine.  Let the ISPs scream bloody
> murder, I guess.  ( I don't really feel that way)  If I were an ISp
> and my cost for customer service went through the roof over it, I'd
> scream loud.  When they start with the lawsuits, it'll get more
> interesting, I'm sure.  You see, it's not the root choice that they
> will be fighting.  It's the mass confusion over how to host the
> domains.  Most domain name holders haven't a clue and many ISPs don't
> either.

And to that I say, nobody ever said this was a simple business.  Let the
market forces drive out the clueless ISPs.

> Do they want to ride the
> > one that currently has the most viewers or do they want to ride the
> > new kid on the block with potential but less viewers.  IMHO, it's a
> > business decision for the ISPs, etc., plain and simple.  It might
> > even be likened to the VHS/Betamax dilemma for VCR manufacturers,
> > tape manufacturers, etc. a couple decades ago.  Did they want to
> > ride the less used but supposedly more technically advanced Betamax
> > horse or did they want to ride the more popular but less technically
> > advanced VHS horse. (Note: My comment on whether VHS or Betamax was
> > more technically advanced should not be construed as a comment on
> > the technical capabilities of either the ICANN root or the
> > alternative roots.)
> >
> > Anyway, my suggestion to the alternative roots is to think and do
> > marketing, marketing, marketing.  And if they don't get busy real
> > soon, somebody new with deep marketing pockets just might show up
> > right around the corner, steal all the thunder, and create a third
> > .biz.  Oops, too late!  They already did!  New.Net, anyone?  (Okay,
> > okay...so new.net isn't offering .biz...yet!  Sorry to scare some of
> > you out there.  But there is not a thing in the world preventing
> > them from doing so if they wanted to.)
>
> This is true - today.  After all, New.net did it in abundance with 17
> colliding TLDs.  We haven't seen too much trouble yet, but wait until
> .biz is duplicated in the root with the 90 % market share.  That's
> when we might see it hit the fan in a big way.  Marketing is important
> for the Inclusive Name Space, for sure.  However, the collisions will
> become apparent if DoC does its thing.

The .biz domain names that are invisible to 99% (or whatever the correct
percentage happens to be) Internet population will still be invisible to 99%
of the Internet population after the "DoC does its thing".  There will be no
technical collisions.  The world will go on.  And, for the relatively few
.biz domain name registrants that will be more or less left holding the bag,
well...they were warned (or perhaps not given the above misleading marketing
statement).

Regards,

Jeff
- --
jeff field
925-283-4083
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #372
************************